It seems that not all Christians buy into the idea of "penal substitutionary atonement"--that Jesus' death was a blood sacrifice that cleanses the sins of those who believe: Washed in His Blood, My Ass, by Kimberly Knight.

Quote

First of all is the deeply disturbing (and some would say heretical) idea of a God that would NEED a sacrifice of one innocent to pay for the sins of the rest of our sorry asses. A blood thirsty God is frankly a warped vision of the Divine cast in our own vengeful image. Second is the more esoteric question of HOW exactly such a sacrifice would pay for “sins”? There simply has been no answer to this question that I have encountered in my reading, praying, discerning life that satisfactorily answers this big fat how.

But about the Cross – we are not washed clean by his blood, we are convicted as a cruel and blind race that will execute our God when God comes to us as a poor man healing on the sabbath, overturning the worship of mammon in the temple, confronting the religious elite and and challenging the authority of the state.

We are not saved by the crucifixion, we are damned by it – or we could have been. Let us face that shameful dark day and accept our culpability – knowing that if Jesus returned today to preach the gospel to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed His blood would likely run in rivulets once again. And let us move through that desolate Saturday knowing what we have done. And let us arise on Easter surprised by Grace.

But as the story goes, it wasn't Christians who killed Jesus. At least for the most part. It was his enemies led by Satan, who really didn't have a choice in the matter, having been offered the privilege via divine prophecy. How could he turn that down (aside from the minor detail that concluding his part in it pretty much sealed his fate)? The real sticking point is Judas, who was either a sincere believer who was corrupted into committing a supremely terrible wrong, or a non-believer who was forced to play the dupe in order to provide a bit of drama. Either way, it sucks. But hey, better you than me, buddy.

Now that I think about it, it's fascinating that two of the most integral role players in the sacrifice going off as planned were condemned to NOT be redeemed by it before it even happened. And at least in Judas' case, it seems to have been unnecessary. Oh well, collateral damage and all of that! The rest of the world gets the benefit of a ransom sacrifice that provides a path to salvation and eternal life!!!

...and the knowledge that it's been offered by a god who can capriciously exempt you from it if he decides that it's in line with his ill-defined and confusingly-presented "will." Happy Easter!

It seems that not all Christians buy into the idea of "penal substitutionary atonement"--that Jesus' death was a blood sacrifice that cleanses the sins of those who believe: Washed in His Blood, My Ass, by Kimberly Knight.

You mean that there is yet ANOTHER interpretation of this lunacy? Oh boy, this will be good.

Quote

First of all is the deeply disturbing (and some would say heretical) idea of a God that would NEED a sacrifice of one innocent to pay for the sins of the rest of our sorry asses.

This is actually a fairly honest admission for a Christian. It's refreshing to see that at least one of them realizes that an all powerful superdude doesn't need anything, let alone anything from his pitiful "creation".

Quote

A blood thirsty God is frankly a warped vision of the Divine cast in our own vengeful image.

Damn, and she was doing pretty well in the first sentence! If one takes the Bible to be an accurate account of God's doings, it's not at all "warped" to think of God as a bloodthirsty and vengeful dictator. "I will take vengeance upon my adversaries and repay those who hate me. I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh." Doesn't take much warping to turn such statements into those of a bloodthirsty and revenge driven jerk. In fact it seems to be that God himself is saying that he is bloodthirsty and savage.

Quote

Second is the more esoteric question of HOW exactly such a sacrifice would pay for “sins”?

Yes, how exactly does that work? I have yet to see a Christian justify this meaningfully.

Quote

There simply has been no answer to this question that I have encountered in my reading, praying, discerning life that satisfactorily answers this big fat how.

She seems to have some pretty lucid moments or a Christian. Too bad it is not consistent.

Quote

But about the Cross – we are not washed clean by his blood, we are convicted as a cruel and blind race that will execute our God when God comes to us as a poor man healing on the sabbath, overturning the worship of mammon in the temple, confronting the religious elite and and challenging the authority of the state.

But wasn't this all part of God's master plan? Wasn't it HIS idea to send his son to die for our sins? She needs to read John 3:16 again.

Quote

We are not saved by the crucifixion, we are damned by it

I agree. As Hitch once said: "Not until gentle Jesus, meek and mild are you told that if you don't make the right propitiations, you can depart into everlasting fire". There is not talk of needing to be redeemed for stuff other imaginary people did until good ol' JC rolls into town.

Quote

– or we could have been. Let us face that shameful dark day and accept our culpability

For what? I'm not the one that crucified him. I am not responsible for this. I am not the one who worships human sacrifice. –

Quote

knowing that if Jesus returned today to preach the gospel to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed His blood would likely run in rivulets once again.

And it would probably be Christians doing the blood letting, because they don't seem too fond of dark skinned dudes from the middle east.

Quote

And let us move through that desolate Saturday knowing what we have done. And let us arise on Easter surprised by Grace.

"We" would not be responsible for this. Only those who think of the death of an innocent man as the sole means of salvation would be responsible. In other words, Christians. She almost could have made a decent point, but really misses the mark with all of this babble.

The writer (Kimberly Knight) has an interesting bio at the end of the blog post she wrote. She's definitely not your typical Christian.

The real payoff, IMO, is the reply posted this morning. Apparently, the Twilight Zone opens early:

Quote from: Stuart Schopf

God did not need a blood sacrifice, Satan did. What ever happened between Satan and God is the reason Jesus had to do what He did. Satan thought he was as important as God because Satan had the keys to eternity. When he was cast out he took the keys with him. The only way to get them back was for God Himself to become human, die a sinners death, and then go to Satan and get the keys back. Satan saw Jesus as the most sinful man ever. This allowed Jesus to just walk right up to Satan and claim the keys to the kingdom for eternity.

God did not want blood, Satan did, and he got it in the form of Jesus because Jesus was willing to die for you and I.

So there you have it. Satan, the miserable little shitheel, stole the keys to eternity, and god had to go on an adventure worthy of Tolkien's hobbits in order to get them back. Apparently, one does not simply walk into Satan's luxury apartment on Fifth Avenue. There are protocols.

But as the story goes, it wasn't Christians who killed Jesus. At least for the most part. It was his enemies led by Satan, who really didn't have a choice in the matter, having been offered the privilege via divine prophecy. How could he turn that down (aside from the minor detail that concluding his part in it pretty much sealed his fate)? The real sticking point is Judas, who was either a sincere believer who was corrupted into committing a supremely terrible wrong, or a non-believer who was forced to play the dupe in order to provide a bit of drama. Either way, it sucks. But hey, better you than me, buddy.

Now that I think about it, it's fascinating that two of the most integral role players in the sacrifice going off as planned were condemned to NOT be redeemed by it before it even happened. And at least in Judas' case, it seems to have been unnecessary. Oh well, collateral damage and all of that! The rest of the world gets the benefit of a ransom sacrifice that provides a path to salvation and eternal life!!!

...and the knowledge that it's been offered by a god who can capriciously exempt you from it if he decides that it's in line with his ill-defined and confusingly-presented "will." Happy Easter!

I think it was the break-off sect of Jews who started Christianity trying to put the final nail in the coffin of Judeism by having the Jews kill their own God......of course that is only if you believe the stories.

I’m not saying anything new if I say that generations of believers in every god have “given things” to their god. The gift was whatever could be afforded and was around at the time. As herdsmen, doves, lambs, sheep, goats and the occasional ox were the standard in Biblical Israel.

The sacrifice encourages a god to be friendly with you and to prove you are sincere, it costs money or, at least, reduces your herd. It’s like having an honoured guest whom you treat well, spending more than you normally would, in the hopes of getting a favour later.

What can a god give you that you should make a sacrifice? In OT times it was basically a better life – milk and honey, fruitful fig trees, many wives and sons plus no leprosy, blindness, palsy, deafness or lameness.

Why would he not do that anyway? Well, basically because you have sinned or your parents, unto 10 generations, have sinned. So the sacrifices went to (i) have him forget your sins and those you inherited. And sins caused bad things to happen to you.

Isa:43:25: I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

(ii) remember that you were alive

Psalms:13:1: How long wilt thou forget me, O LORD? for ever? how long wilt thou hide thy face from me?

So we see that God forgives sins; so why did He need Jesus to forgive sins?

Before that, though, how seriously did the Jews take sacrifices? Well there is a lot of Deuteronomy and Leviticus given over to it, Genesis has several important mentions of it, Jeremiah uses it when converting the Jews to monotheism. But the three main stories are Abraham and Isaac, Jephthah’s daughter and the dramatic human sacrifice to the god Chemosh that caused the Jewish army to flee.

2Ki:3:26: And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not.2Ki:3:27: Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

Given this deadly seriousness with which the Jews saw any sacrifice,

Ne:10:36: Also the firstborn of our sons, and of our cattle, as it is written in the law, and the firstlings of our herds and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, unto the priests that minister in the house of our God:

and the horror with which they saw human sacrifice (above) added to which was Jesus’s claim, spoken twice:

M't:10:5: These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:M't:10:6: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.M't:10:7: And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.andM't:15:24: But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Then we see the mythical Jesus as a man who understood Jewish culture and Judaism deeply and from the start:

Lu:2:46: And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.Lu:2:47: And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

He must have been acutely aware[1] that people felt that they might be good but were occasionally bad, and that their parents might have upset God. (Jewish guilt). He dismisses inherited sin in

Joh:9:2: And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?Joh:9:3: Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

It’s as simple as that - all that is left is your own sin and your own sin did not mean that you would be disabled or made ill - You were good so you can go to heaven; that's the only reason.

Now the idea of a sacrifice was that you decided on the purposes of the sacrifice. It was usually for appreciation of God and the propitiation of sins. You would decide which sins.

So He (who is God) decides that there will be a sacrifice – the most dramatic sacrifice -> a human sacrifice -> himself. So it was that Jesus decided what sins His sacrifice would absolve. There was no need for any proof or argument, if someone said, “I’ll be sacrificing a sheep on Tuesday because I hit Ashbag of Tyre. I feel bad and need forgiveness just in case I drop dead.” everyone would say, “Fine! Can I come along?” No one said, “How does that work?”

Back to the question: So we see that God forgives sins; so why did He need Jesus to forgive sins?

He didn’t - it had nothing to do with him.

The folk-hero Jesus was inspired into getting rid of the feeling amongst some Jews that sacrifices were expensive, the priests live on the fat of the land and did nothing other than make life awkward for people, that somehow their parents had damned them and it was God’s capricious will, accessible only through the Temple and at a price, that could forgive their sins.

Jesus had thus ruined the business model of a moneymaking scheme that had lasted 2,000 years – people could speak to Him directly and He would fix things – He was (alleged to be) God’s firstling of the flock – He was at God’s right hand. Heaven would no longer be a distant dream, it was real and he’d be back to take people there. And this time, it was personal! He was going to sacrifice himself as proof of all this. And to anyone who believed Him (or believed in him) this was going to happen – it had to – there had been a sacrifice. Proof, if proof were needed!

So if it were not real, why did Jesus let himself get sacrificed. I honestly believe that he was taken in by his own rhetoric - he started to believe what he was saying and painted himself into a corner, shrugged his shoulders and died like any other lunatic fringe sect leader.

Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

If that is supposed to make a point, please make it. Otherwise quoting bible verses at us is a waste of your time, our time and annoying. Quoting the bible is fine, if there is a biblical question involved. Otherwise it looks like preaching and that is against the rules.

Sorry. I found this lady's take on the crucifixion very puzzling. Since it's not one that I'm familiar with I was just wondering if anyone with more knowledge can explain how this is a plausible interpretation of the Messianic story.

Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with Jesus. I fail to see its relevancy. You must not forget that the OT is basically the Torah. As we know that the orthodox Jews were unimpressed at all times by Jesus, Isaiah 53 must refer to events of Jewish concern.

Notice how in Isa 53:7 it says "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." All in the past tense.

For a prophecy, you would expect

Isa 53:7 He will be oppressed, and he will be afflicted, yet he will not his mouth: he will be brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he will open not his mouth.

This is what they call "Quote Mining" you find something you want to prove and then you go looking for the evidence to support it. Once it is found, everything else is dismissed and you claim it as proof without relating it to anything that went before or after.

This is a typically Christian way of dispensing with logic and fooling the gullible.

I don't expect you will, but you should look at some Jewish sources for the context and meaning of Isa:53, it's quite interesting.